Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/1988 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Solid Waste Abatement Commission will hold a Regular Meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 June 1988 in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Packet information will be distributed to Commission members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100. AGENDA SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B TUESDAY JUNE 14, 1988 11:30 A.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee B. County Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Organized Collection Study - Committee Report V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1989 Solid Waste Abatement Budget B. Dakota County Recycling Implementation Strategy Policy Guidelines VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. NEXT MEETING VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRS HOEL AND MANN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 9, 1988 SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 14, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 1988 at 11:30 a.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. A box lunch and beverage will be served. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454- 8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. Notification regarding attendance is essential to allow us to order the appropriate number of lunches. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting of May 10, 1988 are enclosed for your review on pages 1/— 7. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Commission. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the Commission. III. STAFF REPORT A. County Recycling Subcommittee- - Brenda Marshall is the City's representative to the County recycling subcommittee. Its most recent meeting was May 10 and it will meet again on the evening of June 14. Staff has asked Brenda to update the Commission on the subcommittee's work and issues. This presents an opportunity for the Commission to provide input to Brenda for future meetings. B. County Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee- - Thom Yehle is the City's representative to the Routed and Organized Collection Subcommittee. He likewise has been asked by staff to be present to report on the committee's deliberations. The committee's most recent meeting was June 8. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Organized Collection Study - Committee Report- - On Thursday evening, June 2, a committee consisting of Larry Knutson, Cindy Ista and staff met to discuss a possible structure for raising the issue of collection modifications with licensed l residential haulers. It is the recommendation of the committee that the primary meeting consist of an introduction highlighting the direction given by the Council to address waste abatement goals through coordination with refuse haulers, that the meeting focus on comments by key resource people who have varying levels of organization, and that sufficient time be available for questions and discussion following the presentations. Subsequent meetings could then be based on the information raised at the original meeting. It was suggested that all residential haulers, the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and the City Council be invited to participate in such a meeting. Staff would also like to discuss with residential haulers a variety of issues including the separate collection of yard waste and a potential City clean up program in conjunction with the recycling /organization discussion. As a sideline, the committee discussed a possible alternative approach to the organization question. It was suggested that the City may wish to cap the number of residential hauler licenses at the current level and mandate that specific areas of the City only be served on specific days. Therefore, haulers would continue to be able to compete wherever it was viable for them with the provision that they do so on a particular collection day. Further license requirements could include volume based fee requirements and same day collection of yard waste and recyclable requirements. This is offered by way of information as a result of a committee meeting and does not have a specific bearing on this business item. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To accept the recommenda- tion of the ad hoc committee as presented or modified and authorize a structured meeting with the hauling community. V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1989 Solid Waste Abatement Budget- - Enclosed on page g you will find the 1988 Solid Waste Abatement Commission budget as proposed by the Commission last year. As you are aware, the expenditures have since been modified to reduce the cost of the hazardous waste collection while creating a specific expenditure of $4,000 for the recycling drop off center. At the present time, staff would present for your consideration the budget proposal on page 9 . It has been very difficult to develop revenue figures at this time because Dakota County is in the process of redefining its funding systems to represent a more performance based system. As such, staff would request some latitude to modify the commission's 1989 budget proposal as that information becomes available. Also enclosed on page I() you will find a copy of the minutes of the 1988 budget meeting in which the Commission adopted a position of following a zero based budgeting process whereby each line item would be justified on an annual basis rather than carried forward or modified because of its previous existence. Please carefully review the budget proposal before you and note any line items which you wish to see modified, added or deleted. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve a 1989 budget proposal for City Council consideration and to authorize staff discretion to refine budget recommendation depending upon discussions with Dakota County planning services concerning available revenues, such modifications to come before the Commission at its regular July meeting for ratification. B. Dakota County Recycling Implementation Strategy Policy Guidelines- - Enclosed on pages //- (7 you will find a resolution under consideration by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners regarding staff direction and preparation of the Comprehensive Recycling Implementation Strategy for Dakota County. You will note that the resolution indicates that the County is dedicating itself to substantial economic, technical and educational assistance to implement solid waste abatement in Dakota County. A public hearing on this matter will be held on Tuesday, June 28 at the County offices. The County has requested input from the cities regarding this matter. Staff has indicated to the County that for budgeting purposes it is necessary that the funding portion of this strategy be refined as soon as possible for budgeting purposes. The Commission may review the resolution for other issues and make recommendation to the Council for input to the public hearing if appropriate. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend Council action in support, opposition or modification of the County resolution as presented. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be on Tuesday, July 12, 1988. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m. q Ad inistrative Assistant cc: Tom Hedges Dale Runkle 3 Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota May 10, 1988 A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was held on Tuesday, May 10, 1988 at 11:30 a.m. The following members were present: Chair Hoel, Bahr, Milbridge, Ista, Marshall, and DeBilzan. Absent were: Mann, Nordby, Knutson and Schnell. Also present were Marilyn Corcoran, recycling coordinator for the City of Champlin, and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein. MINUTES Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the April 12, 1988 Solid Waste Abatement Commission meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA Upon motion by Marshall, seconded by Bahr, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved. ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein introduced the issue and stated that agendas and correspondence have been distributed to all licensed haulers serving Eagan. He further indicated that two hauling representa- tives were present at the meeting and invited them to take part in the discussion. He then introduced Marilyn Corcoran, Champlin's recycling coordinator, to discuss that city's recent effort to organize collection. Corcoran stated that the City of Champlin began its effort to reorganize 18 months before instituting it. She stated that the effort to organize involved coordination of the local hauling community as well as public opinion to arrive at a mutually acceptable hauling situation. She further stated that this process was eased when the state legislature passed legislation empowering cities to organize waste collection. She indicated that Champlin chose a zoned system of organization including its existing haulers. She stated that Champlin did so because it recognized the higher efficiency of having all of the haulers' stops in sequence within a specific area rather than spread throughout the community. She further indicated that the hauling community is comprised of independent personalities and that it was difficult to convince them to combine in a consortium with former competitors. She stated that they used the Minneapolis consortium (MRI) as a model and as support staff to support contract development and coordination. She stated that the haulers were drawn to the consortium idea because the city council had made it clear that they wanted something other than open hauling and that the haulers did not want to see the City contracted in a single bid. The city negotiated a contract with the consortium for uniform pricing throughout the city. Corcoran stated that when Champlin Refuse Incorporated (CRI) was formed, haulers were given a period of time to choose to join or not. She said that during this period the haulers verified the number of accounts they had in the city and that the consortium established zones consistent with that number of accounts. She said that BFI chose not to join the consortium as a full member but has subcontracted from the consortium for a zone. She said that the consortium is a corporation in which each hauler is entitled to one vote regardless of the company's size or number of accounts. She said that the city's contract with CRI involves the inclusion of a refuse collection charge on resident utility bills. Further she stated that any new growth in the community is absorbed within the zone where it occurs for the remainder of the contract year and is then reappportioned among haulers based on original percentages at the end of the year. Bahr asked how the consortium absorbed new entrants. Corcoran responded that any new entrant to the area would have to buy accounts from the consortium or buy an existing member of the consortium in total. She further stated that the consortium controls its own performance and has a corporate mechanism for dealing with performance failures by member haulers. Corcoran further stated that recycling is a requirement of the contract with CRI. A representative of Mendota Heights Rubbish stated that smaller haulers probably would not join a consortium if recycling is a requirement of membership. Corcoran responded that small businesses are still performing well in the system because two of the haulers have accepted responsibility for all recycling responsibilities. A representative of Waste Management Incorporated described his experience with the Minneapolis Refuse Incorporated (MRI). He stated that Waste Management purchased one of the haulers which was a part of MRI. He said that the existence of the consortium creates a barrier to entering the market and that once the barrier is overcome, participation in the consortium is valuable due to the guaranteed route. Bahr expressed concern that small businesses would find it difficult to form if their only means of entry were purchasing existing haulers or buying stock from an effective monopoly. Marshall stated that new entrants might be guaranteed certain rights under the form of consortium structured by the city. Corcoran stated that the city of Medina simply formed its own zoned and accepted separate bids on each. DeBilzan stated that North St. Paul used a similar format. Corcoran agreed that there is a tradeoff between competition and organization but that they can coexist to a certain extent. The representative from Mendota Heights Rubbish asked if there is a problem with customer loyalty when a city attempts to organize. Corcoran responded that there were several issues which included organization, mandatory garbage service, standardized containers, separate collection of yard wastes, separate collection of recyclables and contract flexibility to incorporate price increases. She stated that dislocations would occur whenever a change occurred. The Mendota Heights Rubbish representative further stated that there is a perception in the community that recyclables are a valuable commodity and that if they are separated, they should dramatically reduce the cost of collection. He stated that given the markets and required equipment that would not be the case. Corcoran stated that a steady high volume of quality recyclables is necessary to develop effective markets. The Waste Management representative indicated that an increase in volume would alternately depress the market and cause increased innovation to dispose of the resources. Marshall stated that regardless of recyclable costs or prices, the rising cost of disposal would tend to make recycling more attractive. Corcoran agreed that people will respond to avoided costs when it becomes obvious that disposal is the more expensive alternative. She further stated that she strongly recommends that the City implement a volume based fee requirement in any waste management structure and that particular types of containers of various sizes be required to institute volume based fees. She further stated that there were other means of controlling quantities. She stated that Robbinsdale sells stickers that must be attached to garbage bags to qualify for disposal. More bags requiring more stickers and costing more money. She stated that other cities simply sell approved bags and require that haulers not accept any other bags. Mendota Heights Rubbish representative indicated that his firm and several others already do a type of volume based fee. Specifically, he stated that he credits homes which leave no rubbish to be picked up on a particular day. Hoel stated that the consortium creates an increased likelihood that complaints would come to the city and that a system would be necessary to keep concerns and resolution concerns in the proper areas of responsibility. Bahr agreed that people with complaints like to go to the top and would ultimately complain to those who contracted for the organized waste hauling system. Bahr asked how much city administrative costs have increased as a result of organization. Corcoran stated that the total administrative cost has been calculated to be $.38 per stop per month in Champlin. In addition, she stated that the negotiated rates included $9.65 per month for weekly collection of yard wastes, $.26 per month for weekly collection of compost and $.51 per month for monthly collection of recyclables. An additional $.50 per stop per month is paid to CRI to cover administrative costs of managing the consortium. This results in a total cost of $11.30 per month which is charged to the homeowner as a part of their utility bill. Corcoran stated that this compares favorably to what residents were paying for, simple disposal of wastes prior to organization and is therefore more acceptable. She said that the City of Minneapolis had not charged its residents for refuse collection prior to the recent institution of a waste management fee. She said that they have experienced significantly more complaints because it was a perception of the community that waste hauling was free. Hohenstein indicated that the licensed haulers would continue to receive agendas and notices for future meetings. He also stated that it was also anticipated that the fact finding portion of this issue would require a number of meetings in the future. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Ista, seconded by DeBilzan, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1 :00 p.m. JDH Date Chairperson Secretary 7 MEMORANDUM TO: All Members of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission FROM: Administrative Assistant Hohenstein DATE: June 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Budget Proposal The following are potential budget items for the 1989 City Solid Waste Abatement Budget. EXPENDITURES • PERSONAL SERVICES Solid Waste /Recycling Coordinator $22,000 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES Compost Program - Greenview Service Contract $ 8,400 Recycle Minnesota Resources - Facility Contract 4,000 Household Hazardous Waste Collection - Dakota County 5,000 City -Wide Clean -Up - Promotion with Haulers 1,000 Publicity - 3 -4 Flyers 2,000 Meeting Expense 650 CAPITAL OUTLAY Household Recyclable Containers $20,000 $63,050 REVENUES Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funds UNKNOWN (Dakota County is currently modifying its funding assistance programs and will be refining details of their programs in the near future. Staff anticipates assistance in the range of $40,000 to $70,000.) 1988 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION Expenditures Planning and Management $ 3,000 Compost Program 6,000 City Clean Up (Organization, Publicity, Etc.) 1,000 Hazardous Waste Collection (City, County, Unisys) 15,000 Recycling Drop -off Center (Establishment & Operation) 0- 35,000 $26,000 - 61,000 Revenues Dakota County Household Rebate $15,000 Metropolitan Council Grant Program 7,500 Tonnage Rebate Program (Requires Recycling Center) 0- 35,000 $22,500 - 32,500 1988 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS Hohenstein discussed the need to develop a 1988 budget for the Commission. He explained that deadlines for staff submission of budget requests required commission action at this time. Bahr discussed, in depth, her concern that Dakota County funds may be limited in the future and a variety of funding mechanisms must be considered. Commission members discussed the use of user fees, volume based fees and zero based budgeting system. Bahr also expressed concerns regarding the proposed budget for 1988 that was developed by staff and enclosed in the Commission's packet. She expressed concern that the proposed budget revenues were lower than proposed expenditures. Hohenstein indicated the figures in the proposed budget were actually a range of possible revenues and expenditures and could be adjusted accordingly After additional discussion, upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Milbridge, all members voting in favor, the Commission voted in support of the proposed budget developed by staff, but under a plan that all expenditures must be justified by the Commission under a zero -based budgeting system. REUTER RESOURCE RECOVERY Hohenstein discussed briefly the tour of the Reuter Resource Recovery Facility which many Commission members had attended on May 26, 1987. Hohenstein also reviewed a resolution prepared by Reuter staff designed to exempt cities from county waste designation ordinances. Hohenstein cautioned the Commission on the effect of such a resolution. Commission members inquired if the City had asked its legal staff to review the document for its legal impact. Hohenstein indicated that the City attorney could review the documents for the Commission in the next few weeks. Hohenstein stated another tour of the Reuter facility would be held on a Tuesday sometime in the next few weeks for those Commission members who were not able to attend the last tour. After additional discussion, upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Schnell, all members voting in favor, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the Reuter resolution and to direct staff to address the issue of the county designation ordinance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:38 p.m. BR Date Chair Person Secretary f RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dakota County is responsible for preparing a Recycling Implementation Strategy for the County, to include materials to be recycled; sources, methods and levels of required funding, and specific programs to be implemented to meet the County's landfill abatement goals; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners recognizes that an aggressive approach to recycling will be required in order to meet or exceed its goal of fifteen (15) percent; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of Dakota County to demonstrate a strong commitment to businesses and communities in the County for recycling activities through technical and financial assistance to meet or exceed its abatement goals; and WHEREAS, the County Board has had an opportunity to review and discuss the appropriate programs and technical and financial requirements needed to meet or exceed the County's abatement goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approves the following policy direction for staff, consultants, and the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to work with the private and public sector toward development of a comprehensive Recycling Implementation Strategy for Dakota County: Policy Development Process: The Recycling Implementation Strategy timeline and Policy Development Process, as shown on Exhibits A and B., dated and submitted May 17, 1988 are hereby approved. Targeted Community Programs The general County Strategy will have the following components: Participation in recycling activities will be required for all cities /townships in the County. Initial residential recycling efforts will be voluntary for residents, with the exception of yard waste, which by state law must be separated by January 1, 1990. In the event the 15% goal is not attained by 1992, the County will mandate residential recycling. Commercial /Industrial recycling programs will be on a voluntary basis, with the exception of yard waste, which by state law must be separated by January 1, 1990. In the event the 15% goal is not attained by 1992, the County will mandate commercial /industrial recycling. The overall recycling program approach will be multi- faceted, to include a number of programs aimed at different situations, as indicated in Exhibit C, dated and submitted May 17, 1988. /1 Page 2 Cities and townships will have the option of implementing a Targeted Community Program designed by the County or designing and implementing their own program provided it meets or exceeds recovery rates anticipated with the County designed program and is approved by the County. Community Program Implementation: In order to meet the County Solid Waste Master Plan objectives and the abatement goals set forth in the County Master Plan and Regional Policy Plan, the County Board approves the following policy: If a city or township chooses to have the County implement and operate programs for its community, or ,a city /township does not complete implementation of a program by January 1, 1990, the County will accept responsibility to implement and operate appropriate programs consistent with the County's abatement objectives. Program Funding: In order to insure that sources of funding are available to implement source separation programs consistent with the County Master Plan, the County Board approves the following policy guidelines: Funding to cities /townships will be based upon performance in meeting targeted goals, established by the County. The County will not reimburse a city or township for those costs it incurs in designing an alternate program. The County will assess a city /township for costs to implement and operate programs if the city /township chooses not to do so, including the County's administrative, monitoring, and public education costs. The County will fund implementation and operation costs incurred by cities /townships through performance -based funding. The recommended performance -based funding system will be brought back for County Board approval, as defined, following review and input by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and Subcommittees, based on Exhibit D, submitted May 17, 1988. Sources of long term funding of recycling programs will come from a combination of sources with priority being: ,1) Landfill Surcharge fee, and 2) Resource Recovery Facility tipping fee. Consideration will also be given to a recycling assessment as part of a future potential source of funding. Technical Assistance In order to insure that an appropriate level technical assistance is provided to communities, businesses and other appropriate parties to Page 3 establish source separation programs consistent with the County Master Plan, the County Board approves the following policy guidelines, subject to further review and recommendation by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee: The County will provide technical assistance to cities /townships to implement and operate either County designed or community designed programs but will not provide technical assistance for design if a city or township chooses not to use the County design. The County will provide limited technical assistance, as available, to private sector firms for designing and' implementing (in -house recycling programs. The County will, in cooperation with the city /township, provide technical assistance to private sector vendors for implementing community level programs. The County will provide limited technical assistance as available to other public sector entities (such as schools) for designing, implementing, and operating recycling programs. Public education /information programs will be a shared responsibility, with the County providing an overall educational program and cities /townships /private sector firms providing program - specific education campaigns. Monitoring of city /township programs will be the responsibility of the city or township. Monitoring of private sector recycling programs will be the responsibility of the city /township in which the business operates. All monitoring results will be reported to the County on forms developed and supplied by the County. Reporting of recycling /abatement activity to the Metropolitan Council will be the responsibility of Dakota County. In the event the County accepts responsibility for implementing and operating a recycling program for cities /townships, the County shall bill the respective city /townships for monitory costs. ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners directs staff to work closely with the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, its subcommittees, and the cities /townships to further review and develop appropriate recommendations, and to present those recommendations to the County Board at a Public Hearing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing be scheduled for June 28, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room, Government Center, Hastings, Minnesota. WKSP -11 . EXHIBIT A (1) Q W O; Q z� Q W W ° � 0 CC W L o o CD W CL Q F-- � „ Z W �._ CC W c� W f— O W 0 Z 0 2 CO CL ¢ L. v _ ) F- 0 QL11 p � O �- w > w �� Q _! W Q ~ 0 w ac �� m W H � CD u) Q Q F~- o f WO F-- 0 2 c�)Z z o w e m � Ci)� 0 U� zw O U)00 U N; QW 0 0 Q �� • >- O z <° 2 0 Q 2 co a Q CL 1 1 s_ i) S - : �� 1 U ,:: — is V) N H _ � 00 W a_ = Z a" 0 U 1 7-. C C V U Z 4 : Q CO O✓ D ) -5- l (( • EXHIBIT B PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 05 06 , 07 08 09 10 11 12 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 TASK I I I 1 I 1 I I 1. Recycling Policy Workshop x 2. Development of Recycling o D x Implementation Strategy 1 I I 3. Progress Report to Metropolitan [X] Council 4. Plan Distributed to Communities o x 5. SWMAC Recommendation to o x County Board Dakota County Board Approval o x 7. Submit Recycling Implementation o - -[X] Strategy to Metropolitan Council KEY: o = Begin Task x = Complete Task D = Draft Report [X]= Firm Date -6- EXHIBIT C DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING PROGRAM CONCEPT Typical 1992 Estimated Recycling Households Program Rates (1) Served Curbside Collection 4 -8% 89,000 Assumptions • voluntary • urban areas • weekly • minimum 50% participation rate • containers provided Drop Off Centers .5 -1.5% 5,000 Assumptions • voluntary participation • rural areas served Yard Waste Collection 6 -8% 89,000 Assumptions • mandatory separation • weekly collection • 6 months /year collection • 75 -95% participation rate Commercial /Industrial Recycling 4 -10% N/A Assumptions • voluntary participation • technical assistance • public education support POTENTIAL TOTAL RECYCLED WASTE: 14.5 - 27.5% (1) Represents abatement percentages of total waste stream beyond 1985 baseline (6' EXHIBIT D PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING OPTIONS COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 1. Base Amount - Awarded for minimum performance, which shall be defined. o Dollar(s) per households in community or o Flat amount per community (communities categorized) or o Set percent of costs 2. Performance Funding o Bonus Point System 100 Points Maximum 1. Bonus points for residential sector development o Meeting residential goal or o Specified level of participating households (must be defined) or o Type of program - curbside drop -off frequency containers 2. Bonus points for attaining overall abatement goal 3. Bonus points for initiating or coordinating commercial /industrial sector programs or Meeting commercial /industrial sector goal Breakout: points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid Less than points = Base Amount A- T -Fund2 1